Filler Metals As Per ASME Section IX<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIn my workplace, we get to see extensive usage of E7018-1 electrode and E9018-B9 electrode. In my early days as a welding engineer, this question would trouble me frequently: when a PQR has been qualified with E7018 electrode, can we use the WPS written with the support of this PQR but use E9018-B9 electrode?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conversely, can we use E7018 electrode in production while taking support of a PQR qualified with E9018-B9 electrode?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Can we make any<\/em> substitution of filler metal at all, over the one used in qualification? How do we go about making that decision?<\/p>\n\n\n\nOf course, an overall engineering judgement must guide such a change; however, Section IX thankfully lays down a few rules that make it easier for the welding engineer to decide on the choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A few other related questions come to mind. As long as use AWS grade electrodes, we have Section IX to seek guidance from. However, if we use electrodes not classified in ASME Section II Part C, which are therefore not assigned any F number in QW 432 of Section IX, how do we go about judging questions of the nature of the one described in above paragraph?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Does changing brand name of an unassigned filler metal require re-qualification? Is it alright to use in production a filler that produces weld that matches <\/em>the chemical composition of the weld produced by the unassigned filler used in procedure qualification test coupon? This article tries to answer some of these questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n